Evolutionism the greatest story ever told

Jump to Last Post 101-150 of 202 discussions (770 posts)
  1. ElElyone profile image60
    ElElyoneposted 9 years ago

    I AM
    ע ל ע ל י ו ן


    I do NOT reply to other so called "gods"

    There are none.



    I AM  ע ל ע ל י ו ן

    1. profile image0
      sandra rinckposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I am God! big_smile ..esss

      1. Randy Godwin profile image90
        Randy Godwinposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        I am God win

        1. profile image0
          sandra rinckposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          Yesssss!!!!!!!!!!!!!! big_smile

          1. Randy Godwin profile image90
            Randy Godwinposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            They just don't make gods like they used to!

            1. ElElyone profile image60
              ElElyoneposted 9 years agoin reply to this

              Ah yes true that is my dear man:

              Men try to make many gods and yet....

              Eyes have they, but the see NOT.

              Ears have they, but they hear NOT.

              Feet have they, but they walk NOT.

              Arms have they, but they save NOT.

              A penis have they, but it worketh NOT. lol

              I AM  ע ל ע ל י ו ן

              1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
                Ron Montgomeryposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  2. profile image0
    L. Andrew Marrposted 9 years ago

    http://i335.photobucket.com/albums/m463/philbb/Fark/funny-pictures-of-cats-dot-info-115.jpg

    I just thought I would lighten the mood...

    Love and peace,

    Luke

    1. Judah's Daughter profile image77
      Judah's Daughterposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I'm lovin' the enlightenment of laughter ~~ I've gotten a few chuckles out of the last few pages...lol  This is great!

      1. Randy Godwin profile image90
        Randy Godwinposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        Great, that's what the religious forum is for!

  3. profile image0
    Ghost32posted 9 years ago

    TheTruthHurts?  Uh, no offense (or more likely, lots of offense), but...this THREAD hurts.  Hurts my eyes, anyway; couldn't read more than half of it without Visine and a potty break. 

    As to the truth/fiction of evolution as a concept/fraud, I can only go by the Hubbers I've seen.  Some have evolved from no-Hub Forumaholics into a completely different species, the PHW class of critters (Productive Hub Writers).

    And then of course there's me, the AWATTDUD (Ain't Writin' A Thing These Days Unproductive Dude), otherwise known as the ISW (Intermittent Sometimes Writer)...but that's probably a throwback species, and we're here to talk evolution, not devolution.

    Hm.  Or, perhaps Devilution...big_smile

  4. ElElyone profile image60
    ElElyoneposted 9 years ago

    [b]

    I know one things for sure, I would NOT have YOU guard anything.

    I AM  ע ל ע ל י ו ן

  5. blue dog profile image66
    blue dogposted 9 years ago

    oh my god (little g) - actually you're not my god, but you've still got a little g - you're all-knowing and all-mighty and all-powerful, yet you can't raise your author's score, you can't write a hub, you can't pull one single fan from this vast pool of hubbers, but you can talk about a non-"worketh" penis.   

    what a worketh of art...

    1. ElElyone profile image60
      ElElyoneposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      AM I NOT the creator of humor? And you question me oh man?

      If  I wrote a "hub" as you call them.

      The entire worlds computer memory capacity could NOT contain it dear man.

      And the "fans?"

      I need NO fans...I AM needless.

      As far as a "score" I need no such thing, nor do I care about a score.

      The score is always the same anyhow. I win.

      But just FYI...I do write like the rest of mankind so I can relate to you all better and on that site my score is always over 90 sir.smile

      I AM  ע ל ע ל י ו ן  and I love my creation and all mankind. smile

  6. Randy Godwin profile image90
    Randy Godwinposted 9 years ago

    When feeding the monkey, beware of the shite he throws!

    1. ElElyone profile image60
      ElElyoneposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Oh he is nothing compared to the gorilla I created.

      Ever seen what he can do.....from like 80 feet away?

      I AM  ע ל ע ל י ו ן

  7. ElElyone profile image60
    ElElyoneposted 9 years ago

    Ever learning and yet never coming to the knowledge of the truth.

    And these are the thinkers ??? lol

    1. profile image0
      sandra rinckposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      But you never thought it could be you?  Pretty cocky if you ask me, then again your not asking me or anyone.  wink

      1. Randy Godwin profile image90
        Randy Godwinposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        Watch out for the gorilla shite, or in the eely one's case, the bull shite.

        1. ElElyone profile image60
          ElElyoneposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          What is the matter Randy....cannot answer any of my questions???
          big_smile

  8. earnestshub profile image87
    earnestshubposted 9 years ago

    How to kill a thread! smile

  9. earnestshub profile image87
    earnestshubposted 9 years ago

    Yes very nice madherchod, now put them away before you get censored!

  10. Cagsil profile image81
    Cagsilposted 9 years ago

    I find that anyone who is willing to accept religion, for their basis about, whether or not, Evolution is based on fact or myth, a person is wasting their breath in any agrument.

    Evolution is ever-changing Life.

    Plain and simple.

  11. Epleeba1 profile image69
    Epleeba1posted 9 years ago

    I know evolution is a proven fact. If you decide to ignore facts you cannot hold an intelligent discussion. I do not want to repeat myself here so go to http://s-p-a-r.blogspot.com to see my expanded explanation about my opinion.

    1. johnmatrix profile image59
      johnmatrixposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Micro-evolution is observable....I agree. Micro-evolution is nothing more than variations within the same species and adaptive responses....these are part of the 3 billion letter DNA application....in otherwords....variation and adaptation are programed into every living cell.

      Micro-evolution does not prove macro evolution or abiogenesis.
      Macro-evolution requires speciation (that's where one species goes through a long series of mutations and splits to form a new species.

      Macro-evolution is NOT a proven fact. It might be proven to your satisfaction, but you are not the standard by which the rest of the world goes by. Some of us are capable of research and critical thinking.

      1. Evolution Guy profile image59
        Evolution Guyposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        You are kidding right? You added a link to a site that says an invisible super being made us from a handful of dust.

        What research did you apply to this exactly?

        1. johnmatrix profile image59
          johnmatrixposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          Is that all you got from that link?
          Being a bit selective are we?
          Maybe watching a video will be easier for you.
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azMgKrkJ5lA

          1. Evolution Guy profile image59
            Evolution Guyposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            LOL - more youtube proof? Wow!

            Tell you what - you watch the video at the end of this instead.

            evolution proves there is no god

      2. tantrum profile image60
        tantrumposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        If micro-evolution is observable ,as you say, don't you think macro evolution also happens? that would be a logic assumption, I think

        1. johnmatrix profile image59
          johnmatrixposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          No it is not a logical assumption. Micro-evolution involves observable changes within individual species. Because these changes can be observed, these changes are proven facts.

          Remember...."evolution" simply means "change". Whenever the word evolution is used think about the word "change".

          Change within a species is one thing.....but a species changing into entirely new species has never been observed. It's this kind of "speciation" that is referred to as macro-evolution, and it is not observable and not a proven fact.

  12. rhamson profile image75
    rhamsonposted 9 years ago

    Spiderpam, I don't know to what extent you have investigated this but it seems to me you go with a bunch of generalisms and catch phrases to back up your opinion.  I use the word opinion because your references to the bible assume there is not one inconsistency in the bible.

    I have a tendency to be sceptical of arguments that have absolutes in the course of expressing observations such as you make.  If we want to get into a bible debate then I think this will definitely go south really quickly but if you have evidence to the contrary rather than opinion I am all ears.

    I believe in God but I have no need of the bible to proove my beliefs.  It is a personal choice.  And if someone wants to present their discoveries and observations I also listen.  And if I don't know the answer I am comforatable with that and wait till I do know.

    An open mind and believing is a struggle that many religionists have difficulty with and they gloss over the details to feel comforatable and content.

    1. atomswifey profile image59
      atomswifeyposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      An open mind to what? Lies? False doctrine?
      Jesus warned the church about this in Revelation. Being too open to too much of the world. We are to separate from it.
      Anything contradictory to God and His Word we are to not entertain nor follow.

      There is but one truth, Gods. Period.

      1. rhamson profile image75
        rhamsonposted 9 years agoin reply to this
  13. tantrum profile image60
    tantrumposted 9 years ago

    is that all you got? a religionist web site ?

    as I said before:


    If micro-evolution is observable , don't you think macro evolution also happens? that would be a logic assumption, I think

    1. spiderpam profile image76
      spiderpamposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I don't have faith in your time god Here‘s Why.

      1. tantrum profile image60
        tantrumposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        lol I don't have any time god!
        I'm not an evolutionist as I don't buy any believe I can't proove. yours either.
        I'm only stating  my opinion. Is that so difficult to understand ??

  14. Uninvited Writer profile image83
    Uninvited Writerposted 9 years ago

    Don't you understand that just because you believe in evolution, it does not mean you don't believe in God? There are many, many scientists who believe in God. Ignoring all the scientific facts does not do anyone any good.

    And I'm sure your God gave you the ability to think for yourself not just close your mind and only listen to what was written by a few men a few centuries ago. Of course, I could be wrong about the ability to think.

    1. spiderpam profile image76
      spiderpamposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Evolution is simply an interpretation of fact, but evolutionist want to blur that line , but if you look at both interpretations honestly  the creation account makes more sense. Creationist don’t ignore anything, but  interpret them differently.

      1. Uninvited Writer profile image83
        Uninvited Writerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        Creationism does not make more sense, it makes no sense at all.
        I prefer to believe scientific method myself. Scientific facts are scientific facts, they are proven; like gravity is a scientific fact. If man hadn't evolved the average height of man would still be 5 feet.

        1. spiderpam profile image76
          spiderpamposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          After my doing my homework it's the only opinion, do your homework, you'll see. I’ll start with Darwin himself his work was riddled with words like “I think" “maybe” “not sure” “I guess” “I don’t know” "it's impossible" and he never had a science degree.

          1. Uninvited Writer profile image83
            Uninvited Writerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            It has been 150 years since Darwin proposed the theory...science has evolved since then and much has been discovered since then.

            But I don't want to argue anymore. I believe in evolution, you don't. Obviously neither of us will convince the other one.

            1. profile image0
              A Texanposted 9 years agoin reply to this

              and yet still cant plug the holes in the theory!

        2. johnmatrix profile image59
          johnmatrixposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          Yes, and macro-evolution is not a scientific fact. If you think it is, give me your best facts to prove it.

          Man's average height increase is not due to mutations and not proof of any macro-evolution taking place. Average height increases are due to better nutrition and the DNA application.

  15. Randy Godwin profile image90
    Randy Godwinposted 9 years ago

    most posting on this thread would be hard put to explain exactly how they are able to do so.  But because we can't give a satisfactory answer about how the computers do their job doesn't mean the theories are wrong.  The same is true for evolution.  Many men of science have been cast as heretics by those who are either ignorant of basic science or just refuse to listen when anything contradicts their religion.   Thank goodness we cannot vote to stop science!

    1. profile image0
      A Texanposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Al Gore taught me all I would need to know about the internet and evolution.

      1. Randy Godwin profile image90
        Randy Godwinposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        You're pretty savvy about the internet Tex!

  16. yoshi97 profile image68
    yoshi97posted 9 years ago

    Just saw a special last night on Ardipithicus Ramidis, an early hominid that predates 'Lucy' by a million years and has some features only found in chimpanzees and some only found in humans...

    This one is going to be kinda tough to tuck under the rug ... looks like Darwin was *almost* right. The confirmed last night that we absolutely *did not* evolve from chimpanzees, but they also in the same turn found concrete evidence that we sprang from a common ancestor ... which they are already hot on the trail of. In a nearby dig they found pieces of a hominid that is even older, but not enough yet to know anything concrete about this new species. They're calling this other one Ardipithicus Kaddaba.

    1. spiderpam profile image76
      spiderpamposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Let the media brainwashing project continue...lol

      1. yoshi97 profile image68
        yoshi97posted 9 years agoin reply to this

        Scientists brainwashing people? They have bones ... isn't that proof enough?

        1. Uninvited Writer profile image83
          Uninvited Writerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          Not as much as a book written by men...

          1. yoshi97 profile image68
            yoshi97posted 9 years agoin reply to this

            Soooo ... We can believe the book written thousands of years ago, but we can't believe the tons of documents available on the internet today ... and I might add ... they are from the scientists who made the discovery.

            Hmmm ...

            I suppose the Earth went flat again. Now I need to worry about falling off. sad

            1. spiderpam profile image76
              spiderpamposted 9 years agoin reply to this

              No the flat nonsense again. Where do you guys come from?

              1. Randy Godwin profile image90
                Randy Godwinposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                Reality?

        2. spiderpam profile image76
          spiderpamposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          You're right bones that it.  A dead animal there is no proof that it had kids, does have a tag saying I'm millions years old. No, it's all evolutionary interpretations, guesses and imagination.

          1. Uninvited Writer profile image83
            Uninvited Writerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            Obviously you understand nothing about science and scientific method...

            1. spiderpam profile image76
              spiderpamposted 9 years agoin reply to this

              I sure do. That why I know evoluntion is anything but science. You might wanna look it up though.

  17. Randy Godwin profile image90
    Randy Godwinposted 9 years ago

    Wow, 14% of the population with intelligence.  I didn't think it was that high!

  18. Uninvited Writer profile image83
    Uninvited Writerposted 9 years ago

    Well, you can choose to ignore all the scientific facts that you want. It won't change anything. How do you explain gravity?

    1. Randy Godwin profile image90
      Randy Godwinposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      "Momma says she invented gravity"

    2. spiderpam profile image76
      spiderpamposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Issac Newton dicovered gravity and guess what? He was a young earth creationist too. Go figure! smile

  19. profile image0
    Crazdwriterposted 9 years ago

    *yawn* too long to read...I'm outa here!

  20. Uninvited Writer profile image83
    Uninvited Writerposted 9 years ago

    But how do you explain it?

  21. rhamson profile image75
    rhamsonposted 9 years ago

    You have her all sped up now.  Anything might come out of her mouth.

  22. yoshi97 profile image68
    yoshi97posted 9 years ago

    I believe in God, Jesus, and the holy spirit, so I don't come from the left side of the field. However, I also am willing to concede proof when it's offered up.

    Case in point ... The tower of Babel was nothing but a story in the Bible ... or so we thought. It turns out that through some archeological research they found what they believe to have been the tower, offering proof that the story is based on fact.

    So, if archeology can prove things in the bible were true, then is it fair to say all archeologists are frauds (which is the inference being made)

    Also, an ancient hominid does nothing to discredit the Bible or God. It says in Genesis we were created in God's image, but it never says anywhere we never evolved.

    As for the flat Earth argument, back in Plato's time, the Earth was considered flat, but there were those who believed it to be round and tried to prove it - all to deaf ears. Regardless of the proof offered, it was something no one wanted to here or contemplate.

    Up until the time of Christopher Columbus the flat Earth theory was still accepted as true. Thankfully, Christopher Columbus thought differently, or many of us wouldn't be in the United States today.

    I understand the need to be strong with one's faith and applaud anyone who can hold onto it tenuously in such dire times as we live in today, but I grow confused when belief stands in the way of physical proof.

    Now, I understand completely when arguments are proposed against theories, as theories are concepts given without any physical proof. Thus again, before Columbus sailed to the New World we still thought the world was flat, as no hard evidence was given to prove otherwise. But when it was, people had to accept that we live on a round world.

    I didn't come here to tell you what to think, as that's not my intent ... there's enough of that around here already. I just offered up information I had found and I suppose I felt as ridiculed as you must feel when people question the Bible. So, I suppose in a sense that we understand one another.

  23. Uninvited Writer profile image83
    Uninvited Writerposted 9 years ago

    It won't since the evidence is piling up for it rather than against it. Just because you choose to ignore scientific fact does not make it wrong.

    We have gone beyond Darwin's theory. Um...it was theTruthhurts who started this thread...

    1. Make  Money profile image74
      Make Moneyposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Oh you are right UW.  That is quite the opening post against evolution isn't it.

      Let's start the laugh.  A little humour by James Mellick.

      --------------------------------

      Darwin's Dog

      It is a little known belief that when dogs go to heaven they are repaired and given a new life and then paired as companions for incoming souls that knew the joy of a dog's company. Sinners, stopped at the Pearly Gates, are given cats to accompany them to the fiery pit so that torment will be certain and they will never have nice drapes or furniture.

      Atheists who did not believe in a Supreme Being but tried to compensate by living a moral and ethical life as possible, would spend eternity listening to musak, riding the elevator between the lower and upper regions; never being able to get off.

      Darwin reached the Pearly Gates and St. Peter asked him if he had a dog waiting for him. "No," said Darwin, "But I spent a lot of time riding the HMS Beagle around the Galapagos Islands." St. Peter said, "With all the doubts you created about The Creator with the 'Origin of the Species' you will have to take the elevator for eternity; however, I will put a dog together to ride with you." Darwin thought he at least deserved a monkey.

      So St. Peter reached into a very large, ancient bag of animal parts and began to assemble Darwin's dog. These were spare parts he had laying around since the Great Do-over, the Great Flood. From his bag he pulled the chassis of what looked like the dogasaurus rex, the ancestor of all canines. He gave the body the fangs and claws of the Saber-tooth tiger and the spiked tail and fin from dinosaurs.

      "Here you go," said St. Peter. "Have a nice eternity and watch the tail and claws."

      "Would you happen to have a cat?" asked Darwin.

      http://www.jamesmellick.com/Darwin,left2.jpg

      Source

      1. yoshi97 profile image68
        yoshi97posted 9 years agoin reply to this

        hahaha!!! I loved that one. smile

        Truthfully, I find it a bit sad that we can't have both science and religion. Science can't disprove God, but he is made to not exist because he can't be proven. It's almost as if ... if we can't dig up God from a pit somewhere, then he mustn't exist. A poor argument, considering how much we have learned since the inception of man - many things which we're not proven until many years later.

        It's called faith, because we accept it without need of proof.

        Of course, the converse is having proof on something and refusing to accept it. Many people still reject early hominids as science trying to pull a fast one, when in fact it's really not. The archeological evidence states there were other hominids before us, but that doesn't disprove God, as it never states in the Bible that there weren't other hominids before us.

        Darwin worked with what proof was available at the time, but he made many mistakes because he didn't have the tools (or archeological evidence) to propose a better theory.

        The fact that man didn't descend from apes should have been obvious to him though, as even then the proof he needed was all there. Was there a common ancestor? Current evidence suggest there was and we are closing in on it. Was it an ape? Well ... we are cousins to the ape, at best, and that comes from the DNA genetic record carried by us all from birth to death.

        Interestingly enough ... sorry to go on a tangent here ... they played around with the genes of a chicken embryo and made it grow teeth and a tail. What they did was activate several suppressed genes that had been dormant a long time, which means the birds are even more dinosaur like than we ever imagined, and birds are probably the evolutionary completion to the dinosaurs.

        Science looks might foolish on this one as they have said for years all dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago, and their ancestors have been among us all along.

        There's also a new theory (which I subscribe to) that states species don't evolve so much as they mutate into something else, due to major climate changes on the Earth. If this proves true, then natural selection plays no part in it all, hanging Darwin from a mighty short rope.

        Interestingly enough, the fossil record shows these mass extinctions occurring then all new (and different) creatures appearing. One could make an argument for spontaneous creation of a new species, but the genomes seem to point to newer species being related to older ones.

        Who's right? Who's wrong? One thing is for certain ... There will always be more questions than answers as no one was there to write it down when all of this occurred and only through continually asking such questions do we learn more about the world around us, and advance as a species..

        A Great example:

        How do birds soar through the air? This one led to the invention of the airplane

  24. yoshi97 profile image68
    yoshi97posted 9 years ago

    Well ... they proved scientifically (with real evidence) than man definitely did not descend from chimpanzees, so Darwin was definitely wrong about that one. However, to take the win you will also need to take the loss that comes with it ... the line of hominids just grew two more links down and early hominids show traits of humans and primates.

    Everyone in the scientific field now agrees with one thing ... the one characteristic that defines all humans is that we all walk bilaterally (on two feet) as a form of regular locomotion.

    1. johnmatrix profile image59
      johnmatrixposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I read the article and watched one of the scientists involved explain on CNN (about 3 weeks ago) that they now think the fossil record is showing variations of the same humanoid species. In other words....the fossil record is evidence for micro-evolution and not evidence for macro-evolution. But of course they don't want to come right out and say it in those words. But anyone familiar with evolutionist doctrines would catch on.

      I could visit the graves of the dead throughout the world and recreate the humanoid fossil record we now have....not exactly....since we all look different....but darn close. In fact, I've seen people that resemble neanderthals and some that have ape like brows with low swept back foreheads. We come in all shapes and sizes....and the mistake the evolutionist scientists make is they think humanoids should all look the same during each age found in the geologic column....and it just isn't that way. Look around you. Every human being on earth is a testimony to ID and CD. There are more people alive right now than there are in the grave....so you have no excuse to not see the truth.

      1. yoshi97 profile image68
        yoshi97posted 9 years agoin reply to this

        Just need a show of hands here ... how many of us have an opposable toe that can clutch tree branches? How many other species of hominids we have found have this feature?

        Anyone?

        Then I suppose you won't find any example of Ardipithicus Ramidus around anywhere today. As much as I want to buy into evolution happening real slowly over millions of years it still doesn't explain the new biodiversity that arrives after every mass extinction on Earth.

        If micro-evolution was responsible for it all then we shouldn't be able to find anything resembling a dinosaur today, as they all went extinct 65 million years ago. Of course, there is the open theory that they all became birds, but the 65 million years extinction line is quite a kill zone, with zero dinosaurs found above it and plenty below it. If the dinosaurs didn't become birds, then what did? Remember, birds and mammals were late comers.

        However, I do believe that micro-evolution does occur. After all, it makes sense that species can change over time to adapt to their surroundings, and these adaptations should occur over millions of years, as a thousand years is but a blink in the evolutionary timeline.

        So many answers and no time machine to discover the truth. sad

  25. Colebabie profile image59
    Colebabieposted 9 years ago

    Can I ask a question?

    Noah had 2 of each animal on his ark right? One male? One female?

  26. spiderpam profile image76
    spiderpamposted 9 years ago

    @ Cole- Two of every KIND that's the key word one male one female.
    Discovering Ardi so close the truth it‘s laughable.

    1. earnestshub profile image87
      earnestshubposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      It would still be impossible and ridiculous! smile

    2. Colebabie profile image59
      Colebabieposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Like every species?

      1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
        Ron Montgomeryposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        He forgot unicorns.  Was there one male and one female earthworm?

        1. Colebabie profile image59
          Colebabieposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          I doubt it. They're hermaphrodites right?
          But seriously, can someone answer my question please? smile

          1. spiderpam profile image76
            spiderpamposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            KIND. Dog and wolf=same kind, lion and house cat=same kind, zebra and horse=same kind get it? Two Animals in the same kind breed and make speciation.
            The Bible said only animals that breathe with nostrils. Since we know insects breathe through their skin they wouldn't have been on the ark.
            They wouldn’t have had sea animals on the ark. after the flood the oceans salt level shifted and the animals adapted.

    3. yoshi97 profile image68
      yoshi97posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      The link was broken, but basically it comes down to this ... until Ardi walks into the studio at CNN and proclaims he was real, we can state he wasn't or that he was something else.

      Ardi is a transitional fossil, so he won't be fully human or ape. He will have traits from both as he is a transitional species (the one thing creationists say doesn't exist).

      Of course ... we can all agree that we truly have never seen a live Ardi, so we can't say for certain that he truly is what we make him out to believe ... of course, you can't show me an ark either, and the account of Noah and the ark wasn't written by Noah himself, so the story was passed down by generations of those who also never saw the ark.

      You would think that the one boat famous for saving all life on Earth would have been preserved as long as possible as a testimony of our survival and God keeping his promise, but evidently the timbers were allowed to rot away with no concern for keeping the most priceless relic on Earth.

      Other than Noah and his family, can you name any other person who mentions actually seeing the ark? A boat that large doesn't rot away overnight, especially when it was made to weather a stormy sea for forty days and forty nights.

      Just like religion, science needs a little faith as well. We trust the researchers to get it right, and yes, they sometimes don't, but this is the most intact skeleton of an early hominid we have on record.

      As for it taking so long to unearth Ardi, as it was said, the bones were in a fragile state and every effort was made to preserve them perfectly, even if it meant taking a whole day to extract the bone from the ground safely. Also, so much documentation was created over Ardi because the scientists *knew* there would be many doubters ... they admitted on TV that they were doubtful at first as well. No one ever expected Ardi to appear out of the sand, and he definitely isn't what they were looking for.

      Scientists wanted a transitional creature between chimpanzee and human as it made evolution work as it was first pronounce by Charles Darwin. As so many still believe in the original evolution theory he proposed (and I don't) they knew they would receive a heavy backlash from the scientific community and that they would be heavily skepticized and discredited. As such, they worked meticulously to document everything, to take care that no damage came to the bones, and to be certain Ardi was really as he appeared to be, as they knew they were in for a fight when they announced their find.

      You see, Ardi doesn't fit well at all with Darwin's theory, because according to Darwin there should have been an intermediary species between Homo Ergaster and the chimpanzees. 'Lucy' seemed like a shoe-in when they found her, but she wasn't chimpanzee enough to be the missing link. Darwin's theory was falling apart. Still, they had hope something would be found in-between.

      Then came Ardi, who doesn't fit the missing link mold at all. He's an early hominid, but he's also proof that Darwin was wrong. Chimps came after Ardi and they didn't come from the hominid tree branch. As such, we are not chimps.

      Considering scientists had force-fed us Darwin for years, we had accepted this as true. Now, with contrary evidence, these scientists had to do everything possible to remove all doubt, thus the time spent amassing all of the data and documenting everything.

      On a side note ... trying to prove Darwin was wrong had the same intones as a prophet trying to prove God didn't exist. What proof could a prophet ever offer to deny the existence of he who he once worshiped?

      Face it ... if your minister cam into church tomorrow and told you there was no God, he better have some ironclad proof to back his claim or face ridicule by all of those in the ministry and possibly lose his right to stand before a congregation and preach Christianity.

      These scientists were in the same boat. Any mistake made in their discovery would have made them the laughing stock of the scientific community and would have abruptly ended any funding for future digs. That's why Ardi took so long to materialize before the public and that's the reason they offered up so much proof.

      Again, it needs to be said that they were skeptics of their find as well when they first discovered it. Ardi didn't fit what they had been taught, so the want was there to bury the bones and walk away, but they went out in the desert to find the truth and in their minds they fully believe they have found it.

      Also, there were similar finds in Chad, but these went unannounced until now because the scientists involved in the finds didn't find as many pieces as the scientists in Ethiopia, so they erred on the side of caution and suppressed their discovery, choosing instead to make an obscure footnote in a journal that a discovery was made, but they needed time to discern what exactly it was they found. 

      It's no matter a discussion of evolution ... it's an understanding that humans have a lineage that goes back many years ... and even if you subscribe to the Earth being only 10,000 years old you can't deny that humans went through different incarnations before becoming the humans we know today.

      So, while I won't guarantee the accuracy of carbon dating, I will guarantee that Ardi fits on our family tree somewhere in the beginning, and in fact, could possibly be the first human. Until we find out if Ardipithicus Ramada and Ardipithicus Kaddaba are the same species or different, we will never know, and currently we haven't found enough of Kaddaba to be certain it is a distinct species or the same.

      And to understand why scientists are being so careful about that one ... they recently discovered that many dinosaurs which they ad thought to be distinct species, actually turned out to be different versions of the same (also just announced). As it turns out, dinosaurs went through many bone changes from baby to juvenile to adult, and this one fact will make a lot of scientists really mad, as it could cut the number of named dinosaurs down by about 1/3rd. Imagine discovering the find you made last year and gave your name no longer has your name, because it was really a younger version of something else.

      And so, I'm not denying that creation occurred. Everything appeared out of nothing, which is something none of us can understand, explain, or perceive. From that split second of creation scientists can postulate what happened next, but they can offer no logical explanation for what existed prior to the universe - thus, a point for creation.

      I'm also not counting out evolution, but I will go on record as saying Darwin isn't totally right. He made some mistakes, but that's what science is all about ... creating theories and then disproving them. After all, if you can't prove something (because you weren't there) then the next best thing is to find a way to disprove something. Of course, nothing is proof without irrefutable physical evidence, and the only such evidence we have to date is of a creature that appears on every level to be an early hominid ... and yet ... not one of us ever saw it when it was alive. Ardi existed ... there is no refuting that. Was he human? The evidence certainly indicates this, but we can never absolutely be sure.

      1. earnestshub profile image87
        earnestshubposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        Yoshi thank you for making such a  balanced and well written post.
        You make many very good points for discussion. smile

        1. profile image0
          cosetteposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          well about that Ark...someone somewhere would have seen it...you could have seen it for miles. they would have talked about it...written about it...that's what humans do when they are confronted with something of this magnitude...and people would have been clamoring to see animals from all over the wolrd...animals no one had ever even heard of like penguins, polar bears, etc.

          to explain the Ark's too-small size, Pam says that all other animals sprang forth from a few certain "KIND" of animals ....dogs cats horses etc...how did this happen? through EVOLVING?

          Think about Noah's to-do list for a second:

          go to forest

          chop down THOUSANDS of trees

          load trees onto skiff to haul back to build site

          chop and turn limbs into lumber

          shape every single piece of lumber to build an airtight, waterproof sea-worthy craft

          hunt animals all over the world

          get food for them all

          bring animals back to Ark. keep them alive until they can be put on Ark

          etc etc yikes

  27. profile image0
    sandra rinckposted 9 years ago

    Really?  I thought the bible was the greatest story ever told. doh! lol big_smile

  28. Uninvited Writer profile image83
    Uninvited Writerposted 9 years ago

    LOL, dinosaurs on Noah's Ark. Was the male named Dino?

  29. Colebabie profile image59
    Colebabieposted 9 years ago

    So Noah had two animals of every kind? Cool. So one female wolf and one male wolf? So in order to get the 100s of species of dog-kind animals we have now there must have been evolution. Because there is over 2 million different species (I think even more). So there has to be evolution, for there to be species other than what were on Noah's Ark??

    1. Cagsil profile image81
      Cagsilposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Very nice point to make colebabie.

      Perfect point where evolution comes into play, when talking about life on Earth.

    2. spiderpam profile image76
      spiderpamposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      I've said it before I know about variations, adaptations, genetic recombination, transduction, mutations, transformation, vital enzyme exchange through plasmids, conjugation within a KIND it's proven also biblical, but all those have limits, No KIND can change into another no matter how many bones you have. All we can prove is speciation .

      1. Colebabie profile image59
        Colebabieposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        Were/are you a science major? The bible talks about genetic recombination? No way! What page? I don't know where "bones" came from, what does that have to do with evolving into another species?
        (That list of genetic/evolutionary pathways was copy and pasted, was it not?)

        1. spiderpam profile image76
          spiderpamposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          Evolutionist always try to use bones and drawings as their proof or did you already forget about Ida and Ardi and lucy and......
          As to your assumption, nope researched and typed, what novel idea ,huh You have your mind set and Creationist being dumb when they brings out science you don't understand it must be copy/paste. Stereotypical and sad. No hurt done. Have a great day Cole.

  30. Colebabie profile image59
    Colebabieposted 9 years ago

    Now I'm not the one to say that evolution is how life began. However, why can't people agree that evolution exists?

    1. Uninvited Writer profile image83
      Uninvited Writerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      The Catholic Church does...as far as I know...

      1. spiderpam profile image76
        spiderpamposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        Don't get me started...

        1. Uninvited Writer profile image83
          Uninvited Writerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          Not the right sort of Christians?

  31. Cagsil profile image81
    Cagsilposted 9 years ago

    Because, evolution goes against everything "religion" teaches about life

  32. Colebabie profile image59
    Colebabieposted 9 years ago

    But how can you deny something that is so basic? I've already told thetruthhurts2009 that when posting the original, hella long post, that 99% of it he had no idea what he was talking about. I can argue science all day. So when someone wants to bring up 14C studies or  Drosophila research etc. I can hold my own. Its just frustrating when people bring up things they don't understand to serve as a basis for their argument.

  33. Colebabie profile image59
    Colebabieposted 9 years ago

    That link doesn't work Pam.

    1. Ron Montgomery profile image60
      Ron Montgomeryposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      It will after it evolves.

  34. Colebabie profile image59
    Colebabieposted 9 years ago

    thetruthhurts2009  says:
    5 weeks ago

    I have no problem with variations, genetic recombination, adaptations, transduction, mutations, transformation, vital enzyme exchange through plasmids, conjugation and natural selection within a kind, it’s biblical and a proven fact, but when you Darwinist try to take leap of faith with “Give it enough time you turn anything to anything look at these bones” that where it stops being science and becomes a pseudoscientific religion. and you even can't tell how it all began and where the information came from. I‘ll stick with God and His word.

    I don't think Creationists are dumb at all. I really don't. I'm just a science major and I've been studying all of that stuff for four years and I can't say I know all about it (even though I wish I did). We were just talking about recombination in my genetics class. Thats why I was interested in whether or not you were a science major. As far as using drawings of skeletal structures to prove evolution... I haven't seen a lot of that, there is a lot more to it than skeletal structure.

    1. spiderpam profile image76
      spiderpamposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Same Sources. Great Research. smile

    2. spiderpam profile image76
      spiderpamposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      You might look into Michael Behe's work.

  35. Colebabie profile image59
    Colebabieposted 9 years ago

    If you say so. There are many many genetic and evolutionary pathways and processes. I just thought it was funny that you chose the same ones to bring up.

    And I have no idea what "vital enzyme exchange through plasmids" are.

  36. profile image0
    Maximus591posted 9 years ago

    Awww poor Pammy. She's batting hard for the creationists. (Some may say her arguments are the equivalent of a loony repeatedly banging his head against a brick wall until it bleeds - but that would be unkind) She's clearly outnumbered, out-gunned and being out-argued yet she ploughs on manfully... Ooops, womanfully. More power to you Pammy dear. Keep believing.. you go girl! Knock one out the park for the wooly minded creationists.

    Puzzling why the wooly minded faith-heads have yet to spring to her defence? Perhaps that tells you something. But will Pam get the message?  Hmmm.

    1. spiderpam profile image76
      spiderpamposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Outnumbered, instead answer any of my questions you mock me. Very original.

    2. Ron Montgomery profile image60
      Ron Montgomeryposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Dude, that's kind of rough.

    3. yoshi97 profile image68
      yoshi97posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Actually, I have a great respect for Pam being able to fight for what she believes in without resorting to endless verses or rhetoric. Her argument against evolution is 'tell me how it works and I'll believe it', and I truly believe she would if someone understood enough about evolution to coherently explain it all and back it up with facts. Unfortuntely, we are still infants with our knowledge, only still in the primary stages of understanding everything around us.

      For all we know, both parties could be wrong. It's possible something other than evolution is at work and we just don't know enough about how it works yet.

      Pam might be a creationist, but she is willing to debate rather than argue and attempts to provide facts where she can to back her claim. As such, I consider her very worthy of having a debate with and undeserving of the title 'wooly minded faithhead'.

      Pam doesn't appear to be a zealot, nor does she appear to be weak-minded or unwilling to listen. If anything, she is highly intelligent and deserving of such a debate ... which is why I reentered this thread, because I saw someone worthy of debating the creationist side of the coin. smile

  37. Colebabie profile image59
    Colebabieposted 9 years ago

    No thank you. I'm taking biochemistry next semester. I'll learn it from my professor here.

  38. Colebabie profile image59
    Colebabieposted 9 years ago

    What were your questions Pam? I can give them a shot smile

    1. spiderpam profile image76
      spiderpamposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      What kind of evolutionist are you? Why are you not one of the other eight or ten kinds?

      Have we found one intermediates between two different kinds?

      There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?


      When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.

      When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter?

      When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?

      I have many more.

  39. Colebabie profile image59
    Colebabieposted 9 years ago

    Pam your questions are very open ended with lots of explanations and ideas.
    I'll do my best to answer them, just give me a minute smile

    As far as what kind of evolutionist I am? I'm a science major, evolution is basic basic stuff. Like I said, I am not one to say that everything in the world began as a result of evolution. However, I think it is ridiculous to deny evolution as a process. What do you mean by 8-10 different kinds of evolutionists?

    1. spiderpam profile image76
      spiderpamposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Take your time. All of those other titles I used work better than lumping it all in as evolution, it's misleading. There are
      Darwinist,
      Neo-Darwinist,
      Humanistic evolutionist
      Atheistic Evolutionist 
      Biological Evolutionist
      Cosmic Evolutionist
      Chemical Evolutionist
      Stellar and planetary Evolutionist
      Organic Evoluntionist
      There’s a couple more , but you get me drift

      1. Colebabie profile image59
        Colebabieposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        Oh man. Why all the labels? Are people bored? Yeah I don't label myself. So, None of the Above.

  40. Colebabie profile image59
    Colebabieposted 9 years ago

    Have we found one intermediates between two different kinds?
    You are taking the word "kinds" kinda strangely. There are many many species. There are species that are intermediates between others.

    There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?
    Evolution is not the only explanation for symbiosis. I don't know where you got this from. However some species cannot survive at all without symbiosis, and some can survive but the symbiotic relationship makes their lives easier.

    When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.
    Love, mercy, guilt etc. are all responses to actions. Human emotions are responses. Its not something that "evolves" it is a reaction.

    When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter?
    Not sure what you mean by this.

    When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
    Obviously, where when and why are questions no one knows. My guess about how is curiosity.

    1. spiderpam profile image76
      spiderpamposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      None of those answers are facts they are simply conjecture.

      1. Colebabie profile image59
        Colebabieposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        Since when are you concerned with facts? Is that what you were looking for?

  41. spiderpam profile image76
    spiderpamposted 9 years ago

    Which evolved first (how, and how long, did it work without the others)?

    a. The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the bodys resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?

    b. The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?

    c. The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?

    d. DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?

    e. The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?

    f. The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?

    g. The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?

    h. The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?

    i. The immune system or the need for it?

    I've never got an answer to this. Good Luck?

  42. spiderpam profile image76
    spiderpamposted 9 years ago

    @ Cole I gotta run, but feel free to take your time talk to teachers and get an answer. Good Night.

  43. Colebabie profile image59
    Colebabieposted 9 years ago

    Why the copying and pasting Pam? Do you not have your own questions that you are looking for answers to? Or do you just agree with websites' questions?

    1. spiderpam profile image76
      spiderpamposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      They’re just questions why all the staling? If your right you should have no problem. Right? I've been debating evoluntionist for a long time Cole, you're nothing new. I've found that when they ae pushed into corner they insult, change the subject, bash the bible or cuss me out.

      1. profile image0
        A Texanposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        Liberals do the same thing

        1. spiderpam profile image76
          spiderpamposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          Yea, but they're more likely to call me a bigot!

        2. Uninvited Writer profile image83
          Uninvited Writerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          Believing in evolution does not usually come down to liberal or conservative and neither does changing the subject and being insulting.

          1. profile image0
            A Texanposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            ???? You really need to get a sense of humor.

      2. Uninvited Writer profile image83
        Uninvited Writerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        And "you're nothing new" is not insulting?

        1. profile image0
          A Texanposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          Maybe its racist, whatchathink?

          1. Uninvited Writer profile image83
            Uninvited Writerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            I don't usually throw the racist tag around. No racism in this thread. Neither side has absolute proof (although I tend to believe scientific fact over fantasy) so that is where it will have to stand I guess. 2/3 of the US population must be wrong according to Pam....

        2. spiderpam profile image76
          spiderpamposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          If you're insulted, I wasn't talking to you. smile

          1. profile image0
            A Texanposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            It doesn't matter, they wait in line to be offended, but never notice when they are offensive!

            1. Colebabie profile image59
              Colebabieposted 9 years agoin reply to this

              Was I offensive. Sorry. I do not intend to insult, change the subject, bash the bible or cuss anyone out. And I don't think I have. But I'm always open to correction.

              1. Uninvited Writer profile image83
                Uninvited Writerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                It's the old martyr complex. You disagree with me then you must be insulting me...

        3. Colebabie profile image59
          Colebabieposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          I'm not insulted. And I hope I didn't insult her. I was just curious since she said she had a lot of unanswered questions. But they weren't her questions. Thats all.

      3. Colebabie profile image59
        Colebabieposted 9 years agoin reply to this

        Sorry I went to make dinner. I was just wondering if you had thought of any questions. That's all. I don't really understand the questions either. How do the answers, or lack of answers, disprove evolution? I could tell you how the systems develop in embryonic development, but as far as in an evolutionary standpoint, I can ask my professor tomorrow.

        1. Uninvited Writer profile image83
          Uninvited Writerposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          Damn it Cole, you are supposed to know all that... big_smile

          1. Colebabie profile image59
            Colebabieposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            I am but a mere undergrad smile I still don't understand the reason behind the question or how it proves anything. But if she really wants to know the answer I can ask the Ph.D tomorrow, he makes the big bucks (well not really) big_smile

        2. spiderpam profile image76
          spiderpamposted 9 years agoin reply to this

          I've had kids, I know about embryonic development, big_smile(the drawings by a certain evolutionary liar, Mr. Earnest H.) Watch your professors reaction he'll ramble on and say it's too complicated, and leave you asking  more questions and he’ll bring up the time god and fossils. You can almost bet on it.

  44. earnestshub profile image87
    earnestshubposted 9 years ago

    Two fundies, one a Texan the other from Arizona, geez that must be rare! lol

    1. profile image0
      A Texanposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Fundie? I am neither religious or an evolutionist, try again!

  45. spiderpam profile image76
    spiderpamposted 9 years ago

    Speaking of kids, I gotta pick mine up from school. spiderpam out smile

  46. Colebabie profile image59
    Colebabieposted 9 years ago

    I still don't understand the point of the question. And God and fossils has nothing to do with how the systems evolved. Take care Pam.

  47. Colebabie profile image59
    Colebabieposted 9 years ago

    I just asked a postdoc online and he suggested the book The Evolution of Organ Systems by Andreas Schmidt-Rhaesa. I've never read it but he said its interesting. He said we have a copy on campus, I could go check it out. I don't have class tomorrow by the way (not genetics anyway) so I'll try to remember to ask him Monday. smile

  48. profile image0
    sneakorocksolidposted 9 years ago

    It's amazing what God can do! He can even make things evolve!

    1. marinealways24 profile image59
      marinealways24posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      The bible god forgot to make your mind evolve.

  49. Cagsil profile image81
    Cagsilposted 9 years ago

    LOL!

  50. profile image0
    JimLowposted 9 years ago

    thetruthhurts2009,

    Your thread-starting post is brilliant and poses the very questions that evolutionists will not answer and cannot answer. Please-do, make a Hub out of it and write more of them while you're at it. Some evolutionists, claim, as some of these previous posts have, that you're trying to enter philosophy into what should be reserved for scientific views only, namely life itself. The problem is, that we who are here living life ponder these obvious questions as to how life began and the purpose and meaning of it.

    The usual diversions manifested in the thread such as the poster badly in need of attention who pointed out “grammatical problems” with your post (it’s a forum, not an attempt at a New York Times best seller, let your hair down and relax for corn’s sake!) and the one who brought up questions about Noah’s Ark (which by-the-way was over 100 years in the building and God brought the animals, Noah did not collect them – try actually reading the event-source). The disagee’ers (how’s that for proper grammar) always resort to those type diversions because they otherwise have nothing to offer in the way of intelligent discussion and perspective-contributing debate. NO, they must respond from an offended stance. Why? Because goodness forbid, the discussion might actually have aspects of the dreaded belief-in-God, an intelligent designer entered into it. (Oh my, the agony!)

    You actually weren’t posting for religious discussion from my perspective but simply offering debate on what has been proposed as proof of evolution and done very well I might add. Some of the replies are what were diverted toward disagreement with religious views.

    Strangely, when you bring these type questions or facts up, as outlined in your starting-post, that have been around since the beginning of mankind, it is somehow taboo or offensive to them (those participants described – second paragraph). It makes you wonder what causes such irritation in them when common sense questions are discussed. It's almost as if they are saying "how dare you ask if there is meaning and purpose to life? Don't you know we are a product of science"! "Just accept that and quit asking these type questions you opposer of science-you!"

    Just because your love for your family is literally so awe-inspiring it could move mountains (don't anyone faint-over - that's an analogy) and you have deep-felt patriotism for your country, you have the ability to be highly-educated and can build incredible cities with skyscrapers. Just stop looking for a meaning to it all, it's a product of evolution and that's it. The big-bang theory (as proposed by evolutionists) that we also have no proof-of, started it all, remember?

    As far as the doctored-up proofs (hoaxes) offered on behalf of evolutionary theory, perpetrated for decades, you are absolutely on-target in that regard. This too angers evolutionists to point these out but even evolutionist-scientists recognized the forgeries and how most of them were exposed (by evolutionists).

    The newest "Ardi" partial skeleton, "digitally reconstructed" and announced just in the past weeks but that was actually discovered 15 years ago, has had an entire species built from it. Never mind possible misinterpretations, no other corroborating fossils to confirm it, the possibility of dwarf or deformed animals or those that are non-human manipulated hybrids or that it is simply - fully ape. No, let's announce it as a "missing link" that has now been found. Let's also have the same evolutionist-scientist who "reconstructed" the fossil-Lucy, to now say that "in many ways, apes evolved from humans, rather than the other way around". Remember the movie - "Planet of the Apes"?

    Let's just allow evolutionists to announce anything they like, unchallenged and allow the interpretations of cell studies and other claimed proofs of evolution to be recognized as facts rather than contrived interpretations and just leave all other questions that cannot be scientifically proven, alone.

    Not in a million years, they will continue to be asked, for as long as mankind exists, so you who believe in evolution and prefer heated, disrespectful debate, rather than intelligent, considerate and polite debate, keep preparing your diversions, insults and hateful remarks directed at belief in a supreme being (designer) because you’re going to need them!

    Keep on a-hubbin and a-postin thetruthhurts2009, you bring lots of intelligent thought to the debate and I for one am enjoying it!

    1. yoshi97 profile image68
      yoshi97posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Actually, I do believe in God ... and I believe evolution and creationism coexist. God made all life, so why couldn't he make it evolve?

      I chose not to place limits upon what God can do, as the God I believe in is capable of anything. So, how to deal with a believer who believes in creationism AND evolution AND gives God credit for both hands?

      Just because someone believes in evolution does not make them an atheist ... There are just some of us who show our love for our creator by marveling at his greatest works and trying to conceive how he did it ... much as a small four year old girl marvels at the dollhouse her father built for her, trying to understand how it was constructed.

      And yes, I mentioned Noah and the ark as I had a valid question ... why should the greatest moment of mankind be allowed to disappear from the face of the Earth with no one but Noah and his family seeing it? The Ark of the Covenant went its rounds for thousands of years and was treated with reverence - and is purported to be in Ethiopia today.

      I also mentioned Ardi, which does nothing to discredit God or creationism. As I said previously, whose to say Ardi wasn't Adam and we then evolved from there? The Bible says nowhere that God is incapable of accomplishing a feat of evolution and, in fact, it could all go a long way to explain a lot in the Bible ... like how much of the old testament is nothing more that an oral account passed down through the ages.

      Why did they wait so long to write it all down? Ardi could think enough to perhaps pass on knowledge, but he never had enough of a bean to write it all down, so it's conceivable this could explain this.

      Please don't lump me with the non-believers, as I do have beliefs, but I also am willing to take the time to understand my creator's earliest works and admire them. After all, can we create a dinosaur in a lab? Not yet - maybe never. Can we create a whole universe? Not a chance. Creationism explains the instantaneous creation of everything around us, but creationism was one spark that brought existence to be ... and something akin to evolution (Yes, Darwin was wrong about a lot of things, but he was on the right track - he just didn't have the proper research or tools to put the rest of the puzzle together) took over from there.

Closed to reply
 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://hubpages.com/privacy-policy#gdpr

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)